Martínez Rodríguez Roberto, Felip Emilia, Arzoz Fabregas Montse, Ruiz Domínguez José, Ibarz Servio Luis
Servicio de Urología. Hospital Germans Trías i Pujol. Badalona. Barcelona. UAB, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. Badalona. Barcelona. España.
Departamento de Enfermería. Hospital Germans Trías i Pujol. Badalona. Barcelona. UAB, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. Badalona. Barcelona. España.
Arch Esp Urol. 2019 Jul;72(6):554-559.
To evaluate the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis as well as the cleaning/disinfection procedures to prevent urinary tract infection in patients undergoing office flexible cystoscopy.
A prospective, randomized study was performed between June 2015 to May 2016 including every patient who underwent flexible cystoscopy at the Urology outpatient unit. Patients with temporary or permanent urinary stents were excluded from the study as well as procedures that involved bladder biopsies. A total of 251 patients were recruited. Urinary culture was collected in all of the patients before and after the procedure. Patients were randomized in two groups: Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis. Antibiotic prophylaxis consisted in 4 doses of Norfloxacin ( 400mg ): twice a day during two days. Three different cleaning/ disinfection methods were used: manual adasport (5% peracetic acid), manual oxide (instrunet sporicidal; Inibsa) and washing machine (Olympus, mini ETD 2). Demographic characteristics such as gender and age were collected during the study. Relationship between antibiotic prophylaxis, type of cleaning/disinfection procedure, demographic characteristics and positive urinary culture after procedure were analysed. Measures to avoid bias: Randomization.
Urinary culture before cystoscopy was negative in 231 patients (92.4%), positive in 19 (7.6%) and not valid in 1. After randomization, 129 patients were included in Group 1(no prophylaxis) and 117 in Group 2 (antibiotic prophylaxis), 5 patients dropped from the study. After-procedure culture was negative in 224 patients (91.1%) and positive in 22 (8.9%). There was no statistical significance between urine culture results before and after cystoscopy and the demographic characteristics collected. Furthermore, no statistical differences were seen between urine culture after cystoscopy and cystoscope cleaning method ( p = 0.7), or between urine culture and type of cleaning with or without antibiotic prophylaxis ( p = 0.5, p = 0.9 ).
None of the analyzed variables influenced the positivity of urine culture after flexible cystoscopy. Routine antibiotic prophylaxis should not be further recommended.
评估抗生素预防以及清洁/消毒程序在预防门诊软性膀胱镜检查患者发生尿路感染方面的疗效。
2015年6月至2016年5月进行了一项前瞻性随机研究,纳入了泌尿外科门诊接受软性膀胱镜检查的每一位患者。临时或永久性输尿管支架置入患者以及涉及膀胱活检的手术患者被排除在研究之外。共招募了251例患者。所有患者在手术前后均采集尿培养标本。患者被随机分为两组:抗生素预防组与无预防组。抗生素预防方案为服用4剂诺氟沙星(400mg):分两天,每天两次。使用了三种不同的清洁/消毒方法:手动阿达波特法(5%过氧乙酸)、手动氧化法(Instrunet杀孢子剂;Inibsa公司)和洗衣机清洗法(奥林巴斯,mini ETD 2)。研究期间收集了性别和年龄等人口统计学特征。分析了抗生素预防、清洁/消毒程序类型、人口统计学特征与术后尿培养阳性之间的关系。避免偏倚的措施:随机分组。
膀胱镜检查前尿培养阴性的患者有231例(92.4%),阳性的有19例(7.6%),无效的有1例。随机分组后,第1组(无预防组)纳入129例患者,第2组(抗生素预防组)纳入117例患者,5例患者退出研究。术后培养阴性的患者有224例(91.1%),阳性的有22例(8.9%)。膀胱镜检查前后的尿培养结果与所收集的人口统计学特征之间无统计学意义。此外,膀胱镜检查后尿培养结果与膀胱镜清洁方法之间(p = 0.7),以及尿培养结果与有无抗生素预防的清洁类型之间(p = 0.5,p = 0.9)均无统计学差异。
所分析的变量均未影响软性膀胱镜检查后尿培养的阳性率。不应再进一步推荐常规抗生素预防。